EXTRA CREDIT · Not a Torah Temimah citation · Parallel source on this passuk
EXTRA 5 — Vayikra 2:10 · Ohr HaChaim
Extra Credit · Ohr HaChaim (R’ Chaim ibn Attar)
Later classical commentary (not Chazal / Sifra / Bavli). Included because it directly addresses the double occurrence of this language and ties the verse to the sugya in Menachos that Torah Temimah itself uses elsewhere.
The Complete Passuk
וְהַנּוֹתֶ֙רֶת֙ מִן־הַמִּנְחָ֔ה לְאַהֲרֹ֖ן וּלְבָנָ֑יו קֹ֥דֶשׁ קָֽדָשִׁ֖ים מֵאִשֵּׁ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃
And that which is left of the meal-offering shall be Aharon’s and his sons’; it is most holy of the fire-offerings of Hashem.
Source
Ohr HaChaim on Vayikra 2:10 — not listed by Torah Temimah on this passuk.
Sefaria — Ohr HaChaim on Leviticus 2:10
The Commentary (key region)
Core Text
וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת וְגוֹ׳. צָרִיךְ לָדַעַת לָמָּה כָּפַל פָּסוּק זֶה שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים. וְאוּלַי שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר עַל דֶּרֶךְ אָמְרָם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (מנחות נח.) בְּכָל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁמֻּתָּר לֶאֱכֹל שְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת בִּדְבַשׁ, אֲבָל אִם הֶחְמִיץ שְׁיָרֶיהָ לוֹקֶה… לָזֶה אָמַר הַכָּתוּב ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת״… פֵּרוּשׁ אֲפִלּוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ.
English: “And that which is left…” — Why did the Torah repeat this verse twice (here and in 2:3)? Perhaps via the statement of Chazal (Menachos 58a): with all menachos one may eat the remainders with honey, but if the remainders became chametz one is liable to lashes. They derived this from “it shall not be baked as chametz — their portion” (6:10). Without the word “והנותרת” one might have thought liability applies only when the whole mincha was baked as chametz, not when only the leftovers later became leavened. The verse therefore teaches that even the remainders themselves are included in the prohibition.
In context: Ohr HaChaim first explains the double appearance of the remainder language by linking it to the Menachos sugya on eating shirayim that have become chametz. He then notes that the same word also supports the Sifra’s inclusions (even without salt, without presentation, without full levonah) already treated in EXTRA-1. The commentary therefore sits at the intersection of the two classical sources Torah Temimah prefers.
Type of Learning
Custom (double occurrence / resolution of apparent redundancy) + application of the Menachos derasha to the repeated language.
What Is Learned
The second occurrence of “והנותרת” is not mere repetition: it extends the chametz-liability of the kohanim’s portion to the remainders themselves, and simultaneously underwrites the Sifra’s broader permissions for defective procedural steps.